From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bisbee v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

July 13, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gossel, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: On this summary judgment motion Special Term erred by determining property rights in the absence of necessary parties. Because the Spachts claimed an interest in oil and gas rights to the real property of plaintiffs, they are necessary parties "who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action" (CPLR 1001, subd [a]; see Williams v. Somers, 91 A.D.2d 545). The parties should be permitted to add the necessary parties or to consolidate this action with a pending action in which the Spachts are parties, and to address the issue whether the clause in the deed from the Federal Land Bank to the Spachts relating to gas and oil rights was a covenant running with the land.


Summaries of

Bisbee v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Bisbee v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CARL BISBEE et al., Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED GAS SUPPLY CORP. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 13, 1984

Citations

103 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Meisner v. Crane

It appears that Davidson is a necessary party to this litigation (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; Spuches v Royal View,…

C-Kitchens Associates v. the Travelers Ins. Co.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of plaintiffs, Supreme Court properly denied that part of their motion…